It’s come to my attention that you will be launching the HPV vaccine into the community. As one who has just been marketed to, courtesy of the HPV package being distributed by schools, I feel it’s only appropriate to reciprocate by sharing some observations and opinions with you.

A VCH (Vancouver Coastal Health) newsletter submission by you stated that the “HPV vaccine is a safe vaccine that is highly effective in preventing infection from four types of HPV that cause 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts.” [1] May I ask what your sources are? I can find no double-blinded studies (by disinterested third parties) in support of your position. Studies are ongoing (see below), and, apparently, the jury will be out until, at the very least, September 30/2009 (again, see below). It is, therefore, by definition, an unproven vaccine – an experiment. On children. Our children.

I’d like to bring your attention to the following quote:

“If vaccines are safe, then why have there been over 5,000 adverse reactions [as of Sep. /07] reported from the Gardasil vaccine including 18 deaths of young girls, paralysis, Guillaine Barre Syndrome, etc.?” (Marcia Staggs Abbott, author of Shocking Discovery . . . What Have We Done to Our Children?) [2][3]

(N.B.: As of the 30th of June, 2008, that figure has risen to over 9,700 adverse reactions.)

Needless to say you must be aware of the reactions, deaths, paralyses, etc. caused by the HPV vaccines. The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) vaccine-reporting statistics clearly illustrate it is not a proven vaccine. Your decision to partake in this campaign does not speak well for your agency: Either your organisation chooses to ignore the evidence – and risks being accused of malfeasance (and the ramifications accompanying such an accusation) – or, just as questionable, you are unaware of the latest and most up-to-date information belying the use of the HPV vaccine. [4]

Merck is one of the manufacturers currently under fire for aggressively and unethically marketing their product at the expense of the public’s health (and pocket) and intellectual integrity of our health care providers. No less than the Wall Street Journal [5], The New York Times [6] and ABC News [7] have expressed serious doubts about Merck’s intentions.

There are those who would say that Merck’s history has shown a propensity for malfeasance or incompetence. Vioxx (MSNBC) [8], Zetia/Vytorin (The New York Times) [9] and Rofecoxib (Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA]) [10] are well documented scandals that had either been covered up or had allowed millions to be endangered. I would not be inclined to risk my professional career based on Merck’s “studies”.

Given the dramatic declinein the number of deaths from cervical cancer – in spite of the promiscuity of the “love generation” – it would behoove your agency to rethink its rationale supporting the distribution of HPV vaccines. There simply is no rationale (other than Merck’s) supporting the implementation of an HPV vaccine.

“The American Cancer Society estimates that deaths from cervical cancer declined [my emphasis] 74% between 1955 and 1992, and that the rate continues to decrease by about 4% each year. Also, most cases occur in women in their forties.”

“The vaccine is still in the testing stages (final report due September 30, 2009), but it is already being administered to thousands of young girls and women.” [11]

According to very recent research published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), based on peer-reviewed science, there are serious doubts as to the efficacy, economic justification, safety, and promotional ethics of the HPV vaccine and its manufacturers.

“Despite great expectations and promising results of clinical trials, we still lack sufficient evidence of an effective vaccine against cervical cancer,” Dr. Charlotte J. Haug, editor of The Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, wrote in a guest editorial in the NEJM. [12][13]

As pointed out above, the epidemiological evidence simply does not support the use of the HPV vaccine. The numbers and target population have little bearing on the use of this unproven vaccine. The medical profession can’t even rely on the old standby of the benefits outweighing the risks.

The benefits are theoretical, the risks real.

These data contradict your position and, as one who is responsible for public health, you certainly would not wish to put yourself in the unenviable position of using corrupted data. There is simply bad science underpinning unethical marketing by a corporate giant out of control.

As an organisation that (I’m sure) considers itself at the cutting edge of science, you no doubt should be aware of your peers’ growing resentment of having your belief systems sculpted by BigPharma:

“Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself.” The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It, from an article written by former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Dr. Marcia Angell [14]

“Reclaiming the ethics of medicine by removing conflicts of interest, and restoring the sanctity of the patient-physician relationship” American Medical Student Association (AMSA) [16]

As one who has been marketed to by yourself, representing your agency, I resent the fact that those with the power to positively affect society are, instead, choosing a path that puts not only families (mine included) at risk but allows medical professionals to be co-opted for the benefit of pharmaceutical companies. Considering your CV [17] ,you know full-well that the raison d’être of some of the more unscrupulous medical marketers is to undermine medical education, integrity and, certainly, your intelligence all in the guise of “protecting the public”. Confessions of an Rx Drug Pusher, Gwen Olsen (YouTube) [18][19] , Pharma Not in Business of Health . . ., Gwen Olsen (YouTube) [20]

Gardasil, by way of example, contains aluminum (see below), which has proven to be a potent neurotoxin second only to mercury (Thimerosal). The company is being accused of marketing using bad science and the existing evidence contraindicates the vaccine’s usage. Dr. Abby Lippman (PhD), an epidemiologist with McGill University, tells us, in an article published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ):

“There is no epidemic of cervical cancer in Canada to warrant the sense of urgency for a vaccination program initiated by the federal finance minister’s announcement.” [21]

So, the “sense of urgency” is totally artificial. Manufactured by Merck, ready for distribution by health care providers. Bought by unknowing parents and politicians.

And yet, your agency appears quite willing to support an untenable position that could endanger millions and ruin families. The political fallout would be enormous.

As well as the aluminum found in Gardasil, issues regarding the vaccine’s other side-effects (aside from the deaths, paralyses and spontaneous abortions) have arisen. A direct quote from Merck’s May 18, 2006, meeting with the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) reveals:

“[Gardasil] . . . has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity [i.e.: cancer] or genotoxicity.” [22]

Outbreaks of warts (after the HPV vaccine) were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Report System (VAERS). The warts were not limited to the genitalia and appeared on the face and hands.

It is unnerving that the HPV vaccine would also cause outbreaks of warts caused by other strains of the

papilloma virus, possibly causing cancer.

Lest you believe that the “experts-who-teach-the-experts” are the pillars of society and rational thinking, especially with regard to the scientific method, may I direct your attention to the following damning quote from neuroscientist Dr. Russell L. Blaylock’s paper entitled The Truth Behind the Vaccine Cover-up:

“If the public knew what was discussed [at the aluminum meeting] no one would ever get a vaccination using the presently manufactured types of vaccines again.”

It is a critique of a behind-closed-doors meeting (held in 2000) entitled Scientific Review of Vaccine Safety Datalink Information. The conclusions were deliberately kept secret – embargoed, if you will. [23]

Tens of thousands of health practitioners such as yourself come by their beliefs honestly using heavily skewed (i.e.: false) data from “respected” sources. You, and our elected politicians, innocently base your personal reputations, professional careers, and the lives of your own children and those of your patients on data such as these. Your agency is one of many upon which our government relies for accurate and safe medical information. And yet, you are about to unwittingly (I hope) put Canadian governments at all levels in the potentially humiliating position of having to explain to voters, the World Health Organization (WHO) and other world leaders, how they could have allowed our children to become guinea pigs. A made-in-Canada disaster.

While you certainly cannot be blamed for believing in what you’ve been taught in medical school, you and your organisation certainly must be held accountable for perpetuating the fiction that the HPV vaccines are safe, especially given the evidence presented here. It is your responsibility to correctly advise our representatives in government. They and their families, as well as yourselves and millions of Canadians, have been misled by corporate interests in an aggressive attempt to gloss over what may be the next Thalidomide.

As I have two daughters within the appropriate age range, I am very concerned and would like to know what the sources of your information are. Please direct me to the publicly funded studies (conducted by disinterested third parties) that . . .

prove the safety of the HPV vaccine

demonstrate the efficacy of the HPV vaccine

present epidemiological evidence in support of your organisation’s position

Perhaps a review of this material from the National Geographic website [24] will provide some historical context for what the Communicable Disease Control centre may be about to unleash upon society.

Unlike the insurance and financial industries, full disclosure seems to take on a different meaning for your organisation. There appear to be no issues with violating the principles of rule of law.

As is obvious from the promotional package my daughters received, full disclosure of the vaccine’s hazards is not being permitted. They have been asked to be lab rats.

“A lot of our patients are collapsing after the shot is given. It happens with Gardasil more frequently than with any other vaccine we give.” Gardasil Vaccine: The Damage Continues, Barbara Loe Fisher, co-author of DPT: A Shot in the Dark (National Vaccine Information Center [NVIC]) [25][26]

Your organisation’s poor interpretation of evidence-based medicine may result in one of the greatest heartaches humanity has ever faced.

Before I make any decisions, I’d like to give you the opportunity to both put my mind at ease and provide the references that indicate you and your organisation have exercised due diligence.

Our public health nurses are ready to launch the new HPV (Human Papillomavirus) vaccination program this fall. Girls in grades 6 and 9 will be offered free HPV vaccine with other routine vaccines.

‘Choosing to be immunized against HPV is important for families and their daughters. We want to get the message out to all staff to learn the facts. Helpful information can be found at www.immunizebc.ca or talk directly to one of our public health nurses,’ says Dr. John Carsley, medical health officer for Vancouver.

HPV vaccine is a safe vaccine that is highly effective in preventing infection from four types of HPV that cause 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts. The vaccine works BEFORE exposure to the virus happens during sexual activity.

HPV is a silent virus; you can’t see it and people don’t know they’ve been infected. It’s also a common virus; 75% of sexually active women will be exposed to at least one type. The virus resolves itself on its own in most people, but in some cases, persistent infection leads to cervical abnormalities and cancer.